This is not your typical blog. We have recruited scholars and public policy analysts from around the world to provide daily news and commentary on the implications of bioethical issues for women. We hope you’ll bookmark this page and let us know what you think: just click on the comment link at the bottom of each post to join the discussion. To sign up for the WBP newsletter, visit our homepage at www.womensbioethics.org or follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/khinsch

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed on this blog are solely those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy positions of the Women's Bioethics Project.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

The United States Supreme Court has made many headlines this year and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Most of the news has been about new judicial appointments and how they may affect the future of the court and, by extension, our country. But now there is another good reason to watch the action on the court this year and an opportunity to see how John Roberts will lead.

In Gonzales v. Oregon, the Supreme Court is being asked to determine whether federal laws regulating drug use trump Oregon's right to legalize assisted suicide. Previously the Court has found that there is no right to assisted suicide but that states have the authority to regulate the practice. US attorney General Alberto Gonzales contends that the US Controlled Substances Act prohibits physicians from prescribing lethal doses of drugs for terminally ill patients, which is exactly what Oregon's Death with Dignity Act allows. This claim is based upon the supposition that such a use of drugs is not a "legitimate medical purpose."

It is unlikely that the dispute will be settled on the basis of whether or not assisted suicide is a legitimate medical practice and more likely that the matter will revolve around the rights of states to legislate practices, such as medicine, within their own state. However, the arguments in this case will help set the stage for further public debate about assisted suicide. And given that three of the justices have themselves battled cancer and that the court just lost Justice Rehnquist to cancer, it is impossible for this issue not to engage the justices on a personal level.

Although the hearing began today in Washington and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor participated in the questioning, it is not clear that she will be voting on this issue. If she leaves before the court rules and the remaining justices are split 4-4, arguments will be held over until O'Connor's replacement joins the bench.

Regardless of who votes or what the outcome is, this is destined to be a landmark decision in the history of the assisted suicide movement.

VerveEarth

Contact Mailer

Nature Ally

Blog Disclaimer

The opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the contributors, and are NOT representative in any way of their employers or the Women's Bioethics Project.

The authors retain all copyright through the terms of the Creative Commons license on the site, and thus may use or publish any post elsewhere in compliance with U.S. copyright law. The information on this site is intended for educational discussion purposes only, and not as recommendations on how to diagnose or treat illnesses.

Nothing on this website constitutes legal, medical, or other professional advice. In addition, nothing on this blog serves to create any kind of professional relationship whatsoever.

No confidential patient or research subject information held by any author of any posting will be placed on the blog, nor should any information you post in comments or email written to the authors or managers of the blog, authors of its postings, in comments, to management, or to our design or technical support staff be considered confidential. Do not post or otherwise utilize confidential information of any kind on this site.